|
On December 21 2009 13:00 ghermination wrote:
OP is doing the stupid 13 year old bullshit of assuming he's the smartest fucker in existence and continuing to argue over his point again and again even though he's already long realized that he's wrong, simply because he doesn't want us all to realize it either (which is a moot point because we already have)
I wish I was a mod so I could tell which previously banned user he was.
Maybe they will tell us eventually.
|
and why aren't you discussing my personal favorite flavor of pies? well?
You can only discuss my flavor of pie, and we need to figure out why it is the most favorite flavor of players because statistics says that most people like it already, so we should change the recipe, let's discuss new recipes for our pies to fix the problem of why apple pie is already definitively better than pumpkin pie.
|
Imo protoss players need to be more creative, within bounds of reason that is. They need to stop doing 2 archon speed zeal pushes every game and try to adapt and manipulate zergs better.
By this I mean builds that are actually viable, not 1 base builds (unless there is an inside base protected with a ramp). Things like doing reaver sair into dt / ht drop with aggressive expansions or different kinds of early game eco harassment or early game pushes.
I think protosses need to drop the Idea that there is a DT opening and a zealot timing opening, You can open with a huge plethora of builds if you just have a purpose with them.
|
IMO protoss players need to grow a pair and quit making threads about imbalance in the forums.
|
On December 21 2009 13:21 StarBrift wrote:
Imo protoss players need to be more creative, within bounds of reason that is. They need to stop doing 2 archon speed zeal pushes every game and try to adapt and manipulate zergs better.
By this I mean builds that are actually viable, not 1 base builds (unless there is an inside base protected with a ramp). Things like doing reaver sair into dt / ht drop with aggressive expansions or different kinds of early game eco harassment or early game pushes.
I think protosses need to drop the Idea that there is a DT opening and a zealot timing opening, You can open with a huge plethora of builds if you just have a purpose with them.
I agree with this completely. I hear people talking about 7 zealot timing builds and all this other shit which just sound ridiculous to me. They give you no room to adapt at all. "So and So makes 7 zealots at 6 minutes with + 1" This doesnt take into account what the zerg did at all. What if the zerg makes tons of extra sunkens or a shitton more lings than normal? People are going overboard with builds that are too deep into games.
|
this thread is a complete trainwreck
|
Most confusing OP ever.... And that formatting makes it more difficult to sort out, not easier. I guess you're asking what changes to P would only effect PvZ but that's really hard to answer because with the exception of maybe archons which are rarely used in PvT any change to one MU would effect the other ones as well.
|
Starcraft isn't completely balanced, but I would say that the all the Protoss match-ups are balanced enough that no changes are necessary. The only idea I have read so far that I like and I think would be legitimately for the better is increasing the archons range to the same as the mutalisk.
|
Arg, you cant put up an eye-bleeding post and then just scream "don't flame" when anyone disagrees with you.
As a Z player I mess around with P a lot and find I do quite well since I can predict what Z is doing. This is what matters at low levels, not balance.
At pro levels it.. seems pretty balanced. There are a few zergs stomping face but as the posted statistics show we seem to be around 50%.
This thread should be cloooosed.
|
On December 21 2009 13:21 StarBrift wrote:
"builds that are actually viable"
"not 1 base builds"
I agree with your post entirely except for that part. 1 base builds are perfectly viable (i.e. 2gate/1gate tech)
|
United States75 Posts
I wonder if there's a possibility of, in SC2, creating three "races" for each race. Example - for Protoss: a race for PvZ, a second similar to the first for PvT, and a third for PvP.
This type of setup would make it a lot easier to correct imbalances in the matchups as they appear without having to worry about whether a change will affect a completely different matchup. Something like range and damage modifiers, build time modifiers, and cost modifiers for each. I don't see why this isn't already in effect.
And why hasn't Blizzard figured out a way to make the scout a more useful unit? Or the queen? Or the valkyrie? Might as well make a few changes to those units so that we could see them in more games, instead of leaving them as they are, with most players simply regarding them as useless game-losing options.
|
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
I wonder if there's a possibility of, in SC2, creating three "races" for each race. Example - for Protoss: a race for PvZ, a second similar to the first for PvT, and a third for PvP.
That's honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
This type of setup would make it a lot easier to correct imbalances in the matchups as they appear without having to worry about whether a change will affect a completely different matchup. Something like range and damage modifiers, build time modifiers, and cost modifiers for each. I don't see why this isn't already in effect.
Because it's retarded. All of a sudden you don't have Protoss, you have Protoss-vT, Protoss-vZ and Protoss-vP and you have to learn each of those separate races individually. Basically, you're suggesting that instead of three races we have nine, but each one of those nine can only play against one of the other nine races.
On December 21 2009 14:30 zFly wrote:
And why hasn't Blizzard figured out a way to make the scout a more useful unit? Or the queen? Or the valkyrie? Might as well make a few changes to those units so that we could see them in more games, instead of leaving them as they are, with most players simply regarding them as useless game-losing options.
Because they're not actively patching Starcraft -_- There are plenty of things that could be done to those units to make them useful, and the queen/valk are useful now-- just not so useful as to be standard.
|
Wtf if wrong with you?? Have you thought about PvT then?? What would happen with that mu .....
|
I'm sorry I shouldn't have told you to make this thread
|
The beauty of PvZ is in this "imbalance".
Zerg has advantages in scouting, cost effective unit count, and movement, but protoss has flexible population control and arguably, more heavy harassment, it takes more intuitive play for the protoss, while zerg can make more analytical choices midgame, but that kind of "imbalance" is found in ZvT and PvT as well. (Terran requiring more intuitive plays such as timing pushes and Zerg's transition to 3 gas play-->stopping the tank hanbang with the right amount of units, the other require optimal scouting and more mechanical emphasis of its cost effective units.)
Even on the forgiveness factor, a zerg can recover after a failed 5 pool, sure, but so can a protoss from a failed proxy gate in pvt, an 8 rax in TvZ, they have that advantage, but I wouldn't call it imbalance, in fact its a predictable circumstance for any experienced player, and if you to lose to shit like that on a consistent basis, you deserve it, its a failure on your part and the particular skills you should have worked on.
I would only consider PvZ imbalanced, if there was a rigid build order or style of zerg that would always win without any interval of luck and a massive disparity of skill absent of map imbalance. But there is no such zerg build order, all of them have rightful counters and the only thing I would hold it accountable is the map itself, being able to give such a thing that invincible edge.
In other words, they take different skills to play, and comparing their difficulty isn't compatible, I honestly think many protoss are so infused with the game flow of PvT/PvP (the macro and micro are quite similar imo) and when they touch PvZ, they are maladaptive, because it is so distinct in game style. Sure you have some attributes of your PvT gamestyle into it, maybe even the same kind of reaver tactics you would pull in PvP, but the general flow of PvZ in adaptation and resource management is a far call.
|
This thread is ugly, and since it is a wreck I might as well give another post. Its a sad state when someone who knows this community well enough probably would have guessed that even something this benign would lead to flames. Mostly the tread goes to show who is quick to flame and say idiotic things.
Of course the op has a hidden assumption of pvz imbalance, but he even want out of his way to not talk about it directly and say that was not what the thread was about. Yet people have to jump in and flame. Sure, the op could have presented it better, and I don't like that he responded to my post as if I was saying the op was pointless when I clearly stated its worth talking about at least. Look "old times sake", threads have gone down before, and I've weathered getting flamed throughout a thread before as well. If this really matters to you, you can probably have a mod close this and you can start a new one with the same basic premise.
But, I will say it would be interesting to me if you did something like a poll that asked if everyone agreed to buffing the scout, and then show blizzard the 500signitures or something. That would certainly go more to setting a precedent for change, and naturally set other ideas in motion.
|
Okay, I give up, close this thread... we can't have this discussion apparently.
edit: OP kept getting uglier and uglier as I tried to modify it to get people to start following it. Nothing worked, so it got progressively worse and worse. Now it's gone. You guys "won", GG.
|
quick input...
if u want changes that affect PvZ but not PvT then here are some things that mainly play part in PvZ but not PvT
- cannons (perhaps adding more life to them would be good, it would help against hydra breaks but not ling runby which can be dealt with)
- corsair (make them cost less perhaps. less gas perhaps. or give them more life. like barely die to 2 scourge)
- dark archon (make maelstorm cost 75 like psi storm.)
others that i would like to see would be
- more speed on high templars. like as fast as DTs sounds fair
- make observers barely survive 1 scourge
thats all i can think of that would improve PvZ at least a little bit without changing other match ups all that much. tho im afraid nerfing cannon could change pvp as well. dont know just my 2 cents
|
PvZ is hard but not imbalanced i guess. Nobody is going to change anything, so why even this discussion. I am p user and i have problems against z, but usually i know what was my mistake and it is preventable. Just practice to play better and don't make mistakes.
|
On December 21 2009 15:59 UGC4 wrote:
quick input...
if u want changes that affect PvZ but not PvT then here are some things that mainly play part in PvZ but not PvT
- cannons (perhaps adding more life to them would be good, it would help against hydra breaks but not ling runby which can be dealt with)
- corsair (make them cost less perhaps. less gas perhaps. or give them more life. like barely die to 2 scourge)
- dark archon (make maelstorm cost 75 like psi storm.)
others that i would like to see would be
- more speed on high templars. like as fast as DTs sounds fair
- make observers barely survive 1 scourge
thats all i can think of that would improve PvZ at least a little bit without changing other match ups all that much. tho im afraid nerfing cannon could change pvp as well. dont know just my 2 cents
More life to cannons and 6 zerlings would die to 1 cannon....
Corsairs are already raping zerg when 5+(critical mass) cost less or more life would rape the balance of the match up so hard.
Dark archon could work but also see it from the zerg point of view if you can malestrom early or more times and succed zerg would stop using mutas cause they will die so easy vs DA+Archon.
Fast HT would make 5 lair hydra suck balls cause this build is base on speed moment from hydras to harras toss, if you can get storm anywere faster your rape this.
If observers survive 1 scourge they would fly over turrets no problem giving toss much more easyer or information he wouldn't get at all vT and zergs can't barely scourge observers actually how would hurt them if they survive that 1 scourge???=> Maybe it would be easier if toss players just research range upgrade for observers so they could detect lurkers from a safe distance behind the army....
My 2 cents
Sorry for the crappy english
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
